Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The historic problem is that far too few of our 16 and 17-year-olds choose to stay in education and go on to further or higher education. In fact, we have one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world. EMA payments remove the financial barrier that some young people face who would otherwise choose to study. Fundamentally, the question is how we raise aspiration and involve parents in their children's education, and raise the sights of all children. That is why parental engagement is so important in the education system. It will make most difference for our most disadvantaged young people.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important. Of course, the considerable investment in constituencies such as his from the building schools for the future programme provides important opportunities not just to add sixth-form provision but to remodel and completely rebuild secondary schools. Last year, we brought together capital funding streams from the Learning and Skills Council and schools capital funding in one clear 16-to-19 capital pot, and I am sure that access to that will be able to support some of the proposals that he and the Government rightly want for his constituency.

Patrick McFadden: I am sorry to have missed what sounds like an excellent speech by the Minister last night. May I assure him that there remains in the west midlands a first-class network of engineering, aerospace and technological skills? Will he assure his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence that if they locate defence training projects in the region they will be able to plug into an excellent network of engineering skills and training resources?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is obviously in lively mood now that the Liberal Democrats have started the process of voting for their new leader. I understand that there is a determined write-in campaign on his behalf to ensure that the current rather narrow field is expanded somewhat by his addition. Labour Members would strongly support that campaign, if only we had access to the ballot papers. Given that Liberal Democrat MPs, who can nominate two people, also get two votes in that election, I sincerely hope that they will use at least one of them to support his campaign.
	I want to make clear the importance of the Carter review, which the Government will deal with very seriously. I have set out clearly our position on local government reform, and there will shortly be a statement and an opportunity shortly for Members to ask questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As for replaying parliamentary debates, it would be useful for the House to hear from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—probably daily; otherwise, we will not be able to keep track of the various changes in policy that he announces.

Michael Weir: The one big disappointment for many people in the statement is the lack of action on migration, which causes people more heartache that anything else in the system. The Minister said that £90 million will be made available over three years for the stabilisation scheme. Does he think that it will be another three years before the Henshaw review is put into effect, so that it will be six years before the new system is introduced? People will still be on different systems which, as I said, causes much anguish. If the new system is to receive public backing it must be a fair one that treats everyone the same. On debt recovery, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to use private debt collectors, can he assure us that there will be strict monitoring of their effectiveness and, importantly, the methods that they use to recover payment, as the industry has more than its fair share of shady characters?

Mark Francois: I agree that, given the myriad problems with tax credits, the solution is not to pass the buck to HMRC. I do not think that that would work. Like many hon. Members, I have seen single mothers in tears in my surgery because they are frustrated with the weaknesses of the system. We must do better. My personal view is that the agency is irretrievably broken but, given that the Department has already months, if not longer, to review the problem and that the Secretary of State's answer is essentially that there will be yet another review, is there anything more positive that he can offer parents who are suffering under the broken system?

Charles Clarke: I am always grateful for the comments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience in these areas, but with respect I think that he is entirely wrong.
	We have to look at the people who are in prison today and consider whether prison is the right place for them. I cite foreign national prisoners—more than 10,000 of them. Is it right that they should be in British prisons rather that in their own countries? I cite remand prisoners. Is it right that they should be in prison rather than being in the courts and moving more quickly through the process? I cite mentally ill prisoners, where there are serious issues about their mental heath care. I cite prisoners on very short sentences caught in the revolving door, where our failure—I acknowledge that word to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to provide credible and effective community sentences has meant that we cannot do what is needed for those people in the best possible way.
	I am not telling the right hon. and learned Gentleman that everything has been got right—I do not think that. I do think, however, that it is fundamentally wrong simply to say that the current system is basically okay and we should work a bit harder at it. We have to focus on every offender and build genuine and diverse partnerships.

Points of Order

Jim Murphy: In total, I think that 27 RROs were delivered under the 2001 Act. At the time of the Second and Third Reading of the 2001 Act, it was anticipated across the House that there would be much more substantial reforms as a consequence of it. The right hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, and there is a reasonable answer. More than 200,000 businesses across the UK have been contacted in the admin burdens project on which the Government are working. They have identified a stock of administrative burdens, which the Bill will be able to reduce and simplify. The last Government and, indeed, the present Government would probably not have been able to find time to legislate in that way before, and businesses and others welcome the new measures.
	Many of the non-contentious aspects of the simplification proposals—plans for their implementation must be produced by every Department before this year's pre-Budget report—will find a path through Parliament as a consequence of the Bill. An avenue may also be found for the mergers envisaged in the Hampton report and the penalties review that Professor Macrory is undertaking on the Government's behalf. I believe that 29 of the Law Commission's proposals have not yet been implemented, and that the Government consider about 16 of them to be non-contentious, at least in part.
	I hope that I have given a full answer to the entirely fair question asked by the right hon. Gentleman.
	As I have said, the Bill removes technical limitations such as the legal burdens concept, and makes the RRO power simpler to use. That power is expected to deliver a better regulation outcome than the removal or imposition of a legal burden. The order-making power will also be able to confer legislative functions, or sub-delegation. It can confer a new power on a Minister to lay statutory instruments subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. That is an important restriction, which will ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of that function by Ministers. In addition, a Minister proposing to make an order conferring legislative functions on a Minister will have to lay an explanatory document before Parliament giving reasons for the power to legislate and the procedural safeguards attached to it. Where possible, Ministers will be expected to lay regulations in draft to illustrate exactly how such functions will be used.
	While the proposed new power is much more straightforward and more able to deliver better regulation outcomes, the preconditions in the Bill are stronger than those in the 2001 Act. They have a wider application, applying to all types of provision made by order, not just to those affecting burdens. A Minister wishing to make an order under the new power must ensure that those stringent safeguards are observed.
	The Bill specifies five conditions. A Minister must be satisfied that they have been met before embarking on the order-making process. I think that this deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). There must be no non-legislative alternatives to the order; the effect of the proposal must be proportionate to its policy objectives; the proposal must strike a fair balance between the public interest in its implementation and the interests of any individuals who would be adversely affected by it; the order must not remove any necessary protections; and the order must not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.
	An additional condition applies when an order is intended to restate legislation or codify the common law. A Minister must be satisfied that the order will make the law more accessible or more easily understood.

Oliver Heald: I could not agree more. In fact, later in my speech I will talk about the one in, one out principle that Sir David Arculus considered when he was in charge of the Better Regulation Task Force—now renamed the Better Regulation Commission—when trying to balance new regulation against the removal of outdated regulation. I accept that protection is also important.
	Other measures, such as the International Institute for Management Development's "World Competitiveness Yearbook", show that the UK has fallen from ninth to 22nd since 1997. The London School of Economics recently warned about
	"concerns that tougher competition could be undermined by increasing regulation".
	The CBI has said:
	"Many businesses believe regulation is damaging the UK's attraction as a place to invest . . . the burden has grown and expect it to increase further."
	The Library has shown that there are 3,887 regulations a year on average under this Government—15 every working day. That is a 50 per cent. increase on what happened under the last Conservative Government.
	Against the background of failure that was evident in 2000, Lord Falconer introduced the Regulatory Reform Bill, which was described as a major measure for deregulation. He said:
	"The Bill will provide a major tool to tackle unnecessary over-lapping, over-complex and over-burdensome legislation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 850.]
	In the House on 19 March 2001, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer),
	was asked:
	"Do the Government intend the measure to be used to introduce orders that have a net deregulatory effect—yes or no?"
	He said:
	"The Bill makes it clear that each regulatory reform order must contain a deregulatory element."—[Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 118.]
	The Bill was described as "a valuable tool", "an excellent tool" and "a major tool", but the sad history records that only 27 regulatory reform orders have been made, although everyone expected more than 60.
	Of course, a review was promised. It talks about whether it should be possible to amend or appeal primary legislation to do one of three things: remove, reduce, re-enact or impose burdens; simplify legislation; and implement uncontroversial Law Commission recommendations. We wanted that power to be as flexible as possible, so it went out to consultation. Not surprisingly, business groups in particular supported the consultation and the idea of that flexibility, but something strange then occurred. The Government changed tack and removed all reference to removing burdens on business. What we have now is constitutionally novel. The Bill extends the scope of powers available to Ministers while relaxing the constraints of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers will be able to amend, repeal or pass primary legislation without going through the normal parliamentary procedures. There is no requirement that such measures should have a deregulatory effect, so the danger is that we shall have legislation, regulation and parliamentary corner-cutting with no deregulation at all.
	Like the Minister, the Government talk much about deregulation and better regulation. They have their Better Regulation Commission, with its new chairman, and their simplification process, whereby every Department has to find simpler legislation. Expensive consultants have calculated the costs to many businesses of every burden or cost of regulation. Now, we have the Bill, but the sad truth is that so far, despite the talk, there has been no deregulation.
	All the talk of one in, one out—the idea that every time a regulation is passed another should be repealed—is a vain hope. The Minister will have seen the latest list from the Department of Trade and Industry showing the regulations coming in on 6 April and 1 October—the regulation-making days. It runs to 30 pages, but there is not even the sniff of a list of regulations that will be scrapped. As the Institute of Directors said recently:
	"We are pleased to see all the policy activity, but are still waiting to see tangible action on the ground."

John Redwood: I accept your reproof in good spirit, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, I will.
	The issue I wish to raise is not the powers in the Bill, although we need to reach a conclusion on that, but whether the Bill—as suitably amended, perhaps—will tackle the Government's underlying problem. Will it help the Government to deregulate—will it help them to deal with the many clogs in the arteries of business and commerce that the Prime Minister himself has identified? Many months have passed since the Prime Minister made a brilliant speech on deregulation, full of admirable sentiments and analysis—a speech that I would have been proud to have made. The Prime Minister has a big advantage over me in that he is the Prime Minister and he can do more than make speeches; he can actually implement measures. He can make change happen in the Government that he leads—when he is leading it, that is. Since that speech was made, however, we have seen nothing to back up the fine words.
	The Prime Minister has told us that, for every new regulation introduced, one would be removed—a crude device that would allow the Government to introduce a big and expensive regulation while removing a cheap and ineffective one, but it would be better than nothing. What has happened since the Prime Minister opined? About 4,000 new regulations have been introduced and almost none has been struck off. It is not working. Since the Prime Minister made his speech in support of better and more sensitive regulation, we have seen no such development—there has been no abolition of quangos, no reduction in the intrusiveness of the regulators and no measures have been brought to the House for repeal.
	The wide powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 that we were told would be used to achieve that aim have not been so used. A mere 27 measures have been subjected to them and even the Under-Secretary was hard pressed to remember any of them or to claim that anything good had happened as a result. People outside are not saying, "Oh, I'm so grateful for the 2001 Act—my life has been transformed and great swathes of regulation that I used to have to slave under have been removed." Nothing memorable has happened.
	The Under-Secretary made a promising start to his speech. He honestly stated that he had inherited the 2001 Act, which clearly has not been working well—we might be less flattering and say that it has not worked at all—and his analysis suggested that the 2001 Act lacked sufficient teeth, so he was introducing today a Bill with more teeth. The House pointed out two problems with his argument: first, the Bill does not actually state that the powers will be used for deregulation—they could be used for extra regulation—and, secondly, there are some democratic affronts in the proposals. His defence was interesting. He said that there were more protections in the Bill than there were in the 2001 Act. If that is the case, how can the Under-Secretary claim that the Bill will solve the problem of the 2001 Act which, he established, lacked teeth, was too democratic, too cautiously worded and did not allow Ministers to operate without parliamentary control and oversight? We should repeat the big question for the Treasury Bench in the hope that the Under-Secretary can provide an answer. If these new large powers are given to Ministers how will they be used in the next couple of years, and what is their programme? What do Ministers want to strike off the statute book, and what do they wish to amend or refine, using the powers that could not be done under the 2001 Act or by introducing straightforward primary legislation in the House?
	The Under-Secretary was wrong to suggest that I bind my Front-Bench spokesmen and speak for them. As chairman of the policy review, I am not a member of the Front-Bench team and I am not governed by collective responsibility, but I believe that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that, if the Under-Secretary has a good list of things that he would like to repeal, we would be happy to expedite their passage through the House using the usual procedures. If he wished to introduce a deregulation Bill or a repeals Bill—I can see that my hon. Friends are excited by that prospect, for which we have been waiting for eight years—I am sure that we would expedite the passage of such measures. It would be possible with the agreement of the usual channels to introduce a Bill that would not need very much scrutiny at all because we would be happy with the measures that it contained. Such a Bill could then proceed using the correct procedures.
	Whenever I make the case for deregulation, Labour Back Benchers and sometimes Ministers intervene to ask what specifically I would do, hoping that that is the knockout question. They know that when I was shadow Secretary of State for deregulation in the previous shadow Cabinet, I drew up a list of 53 items that we wish to deregulate, in primary legislation where necessary, including some very significant items indeed. I have sent them on several occasions to ministerial and regulatory offices—they never seem to remember them—and whenever I am asked what exactly I would deregulate, those proposals remain on the table. The list will not be the same at the next general election, as my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Front-Bench team will compile a list suitable for the circumstances of 2009 or 2010. It will probably be much longer, as many more things will have been put on to the statute book in the meantime by the Government that we will consider unnecessary or undesirable.
	It is useful, however, to consider whether one or two things could be achieved by using proposals in the Bill or by using more direct means. First, only in the United Kingdom have we managed money-laundering regulations in such a cack-handed and clumsy way that people who want to deposit a couple of hundred pounds in a building society or a bank have to take their gas bill, their passport, their driving licence, and testimonials from their neighbours to prove that the money was not obtained illicitly. I cannot for the life of me understand how taking a gas bill to the bank proves that one's money was not obtained illicitly, but apparently it provides protection. I cannot understand how possession of a gas bill proves conclusively that someone lives at an address all the time or that they are an upright member of the community. I think that that should be established in different ways, and it would be better established by the appropriate authorities when there are grounds to suspect someone. That is a better method than making my constituents take all those ridiculous bits of paper to the bank. Often the bank manager or clerk knows exactly who the applicant is, but they still have to go through the rigmarole of asking for those bits of paper. Could that not be sorted out?
	Why do we regulate venture capital at all? If we want a flourishing and dynamic economy, the venture capital industry is quite capable of carrying out its affairs business to business without any regulatory intervention. We should deregulate venture capital and take it out of the net.
	Why do we need to regulate business to business transactions in financial services? We have a great City of London, but people tell me now that it is getting too regulated and quite a lot of the best innovation in the City of London now is available for markets outside Britain but not for the British marketplace, for the simple reason that there is too much regulatory hassle to go through to get the new idea agreed, and further elaborate restrictions on sale, offer and advertisement. Would it not be possible for Ministers to decide that we do not need to regulate business to business, professional to professional transactions in financial services, and exempt them from all the current regulatory hassle?
	Why do we need regulation on data protection? This was not on the original list of 63 items that the official Opposition sponsored, but we have a clumsy system of data protection. It is one of the bigger burdens mentioned in the list referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire in his opening remarks—over £5.5 billion of compliance, and I do not see that it necessarily offers the protection that the Government have in mind.
	When one looks at the impact of regulation, one often finds that it does not protect the data against abuse by criminals and potential criminals and it does not necessarily inform the public, but it represents a very large burden indeed. How many times have hon. Members tried to use data protection and freedom of information to find out legitimate things from the Government only to find that, under existing legislation, there are ways to block that legitimate inquiry and stifle one's appetite for information? Data protection certainly needs a haircut, even if the Government do not want to go as far as reducing it entirely. It seems a disproportionately expensive and complex machine for a rather limited goal.
	If we look at EU regulations, we see marvellous examples of the legislative pen working overtime. It is one of the great pities of both the Brussels government machine and of the British government machine that they are so inefficient at doing all the things a Government ought to be doing, apart from legislating, where they seem to be highly productive and capable of churning out large amounts of regulation and law.
	Built into the EU system is the idea of the presidency. The new country assuming the presidency of the Community for six months is always told by astute officials in Brussels that its presidency will be judged by how much new regulation it manages to get on the statute book. Each one is given a suitable challenge, sometimes pandering to its inclinations, so the British presidency would be told that some measure was market-opening and a French presidency would be told that a measure was market-closing, and they would be encouraged to go about the business of trying to get it through. Sometimes the Commission has an even better sense of humour, as in the case of the last British presidency, where it set them ridiculous things to do, like giving away the British rebate, and—surprise, surprise—the British Government fell for it. One could not make it up.
	The idea of the presidency is used to make sure there is more regulation than we need. The British Government are always telling us they are leaders in Europe, so why can they not find a way of saying to colleague members of the European Union that maybe we have enough European law now, or that if we want a little more European law, perhaps we should take some off first, to make room for it?

Jonathan Djanogly: The intellectual paucity of that remark is such that I shall not even respond to it.
	After much talk on deregulation, the Government must deliver, and companies must see that delivery and start to feel tangible benefits for their businesses and the economy. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that the Bill aims to deliver better regulation, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham was right to ask how it could do so when it contains nothing that relates directly to deregulation.
	We remain concerned that the Bill does not do enough to reduce regulation or create the light-touch deregulatory culture in Whitehall that is so needed. In addition, we are worried about the constitutional problems that it raises. That concern was shared by many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and the hon. Members for Cannock Chase, for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), for Somerton and Frome and for Cambridge (David Howarth), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and for Christchurch, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cambridge went further and said that the importance of the constitutional issue was such that it should be reviewed and debated on the Floor of the House. We agree, and hope that the Government will make a positive response to that point.
	Part 1 of the Bill supersedes the RRO provisions in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, and gives the Government wide powers to reform legislation and implement recommendations from the Law Commissioners. According to the Regulatory Reform Committee's report published on 31 January—I congratulate the Committee on a thorough piece of work—part 1 is explicitly less focused on regulation than the 2001 Act. There is nothing in the Bill that requires orders to have a deregulatory element. Despite the assurance that the Committee says it needs fully to support the Bill, the so-called safeguards are—according to the report—dwarfed when set against the increased powers that the Bill will provide to Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch elaborated fluently on that theme. I also agree with the comments by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), a member of the Committee, made a similar point.
	We should be aware of the recommendations of the Committee. In particular, it noted that as a matter of urgency the Cabinet Office should retrospectively assess the estimates, costs and benefits that have previously been submitted to the House for each regulatory reform order, with a view to establishing whether the estimated savings have been realised. Several hon. Members also noted that the breadth of powers granted could be used in areas that are politically sensitive, not least in relation to the use of criminal penalties. That is an issue that will have to be addressed carefully in Committee. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that part 1 is unacceptable as it stands, and we agree.
	Part 2 introduces statutory principles of good regulation which are to be used to inform a code of practice to which specified regulations must have regard. Although we welcome that, we have explained today the need to go much further to create the sort of light touch regulation business needs and to address the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon expressed about super-regulators.
	Part 3 of the Bill relates to legislation emanating from the EU. We have said that we support the idea of making it easier for UK institutions to deal with EU legislation, but—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich asked—how will that actually work? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked, what are the rules and schemes for EU law referred to in the Bill? We need to know.
	The Bill has a striking resemblance to parts of other Bills before this House and the other place. Those need to be looked at in context to highlight the growing constitutional trend away from primary legislation. The Company Law Reform Bill and the Government of Wales Bill both include a similar means of introducing orders through forms of delegated legislation. Part 31 of the Company Law Reform Bill is described in its explanatory notes as
	"a new power to reform company law by means of a special form of secondary legislation."
	It constitutes a significant change to legislation and was described by Lord Freeman on Second Reading in the other place as "a parliamentary outrage". He then quoted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to strike out part 31. While those observations are in the context of the Company Law Reform Bill, they tackle many of the same questions of delegated legislation that arise in the Bill before us.
	The procedure proposed in part 31 of the Company Law Reform Bill is similar, but not identical to that proposed for regulatory reform orders. The document to be laid before Parliament, for example, is broadly the equivalent of the statement that is to be laid under regulatory reform orders. Although there are procedural differences, part 31 orders are comparable to clause 16 super-affirmative resolution procedure regulatory reform orders. Is the Department for Trade and Industry not talking to the Cabinet Office? For instance, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that the existing regulatory reform order procedure is not suitable for large and controversial measures, such as those that may be the subject of part 31 orders. Will the Minister explain when it will be acceptable to use one or the other order? It is bizarre that the Government should introduce three similar but varying super-statutory instrument regimes at the same time. That could cause confusion and conflicting procedures. How does the Minister reconcile that? I would be grateful if he could write to me explaining the rationale behind that very important issue.
	Despite the undeniable crossover between the three sets of orders that come from such legislation, we need significantly to increase accountability in any event, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said, so that the Bill can be used to control a huge increase in Executive power. That could include limiting the orders to deregulation matters and then to genuinely minor and uncontroversial matters, with veto provisions either in the Bill or perhaps in Standing Orders—we have yet to debate that—while recognising the complexities that were noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. It could also include increasing the period allowed for parliamentary consideration, or reducing the subjective ministerial aspect of decision making.
	As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, those powers could include determining whether an order or primary legislation is appropriate in the first place, or whether to use a mandatory majority or unanimous votes in the relevant Select Committees of either or both Houses, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) suggested. They could include inserting retrospective scrutiny, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. To answer the questions on delivery, quite rightly posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, they could even include creating a body similar to the proposed company law and reporting commission to review law and conduct independent consultation and propose changes likely to be implemented by order. So there will be much to consider in Committee.
	Although we acknowledge the Minister's hope to reduce unnecessary red tape and burdens on business, the public sector and voluntary organisations, we want assurances from the Government that that will happen with the Bill. Proper protections are needed in determining whether regulations are necessary in the circumstances, and we remain concerned about the breadth of the order-making powers that the Bill confers. It is vital to review how the Bill will work in practice, which is why we shall request that a sunset clause be inserted. The Bill is of major constitutional significance in changing the way that legislation is processed, taking the onus away from Parliament and directing it to Ministers and Whitehall, so it will be fully reviewed by us in Committee and reconsidered as a whole during its later stages.

Public Libraries

Michael Fallon: I hope the authorities in Northamptonshire will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I do not want any library closed, as I shall go on to say. Unless the Government act more decisively, we could see many more public libraries start to wither away much more rapidly than they have done.
	What have the Government been doing? They began with their five-year plan. We are familiar with that in various Departments. That is not a criticism; there should be a plan. They issued a document, "Framework for the Future", then they got going on the library service itself, with a series of Whitehall-driven initiatives. In 1998, we had annual library plans. In 2001, public library standards were issued. Then we had public library position statements and in 2004 public library service standards. Those have been superseded, I understand, by what is described as a new suite of best value performance indicators within the comprehensive performance assessment culture block. Next year, I understand, there will be public library impact measures.
	A blizzard of paper, but while all that has been issued, the service has in general terms continued to decline. The Audit Commission reported that half of all library services were inadequate. In an excellent report last year, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee stated that it was
	"dismayed by the chopping and changing that has taken place"
	in Government policy. Most seriously of all, its report has been badly neglected. I have rarely seen—this is not a criticism of the present Minister; it was probably his predecessor—a more pathetic response than the Government's response to that Select Committee report in Cm 6648.
	When asked to consider common processing, the Government responded:
	"We would want to see common standards adopted".
	On the recommendation on collective purchasing, they stated that they
	"would wish to provoke a discussion about which model is most likely to succeed"—
	not, I think, the smack of firm government. On the decline in borrowing, we have the platitude
	"the fall in issues may be due to the service not keeping up with social trends".
	That will not do. Public libraries are not a purely local service. Councils have a duties to provide it, but the Minister has a duty to ensure that it is provided. Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964—
	"An Act to place the public library service provided by local authorities . . . under the superintendence of the Secretary of State"—
	it was clearly laid down in clause 1 that
	"it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales".
	We are not discussing the maintenance of the drains or refuse collection. The service is provided locally and Parliament insisted that the Secretary of State has a national responsibility to superintend it in the 1964 Act. Under the 1964 Act, the Minister has powers to intervene, and, as we have heard, he also has funding streams at his disposal. The Government must examine the public libraries service and convince hon. Members that they are properly discharging their duty to superintend it. I have read the Minister's speeches and welcome his personal commitment to the libraries service, so I hope that he will not take it amiss when I say that warm words are not enough and that I want to see the Government act.
	I want the Minister specifically to consider five things. First, will he stop the proposed closures in Northamptonshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned and elsewhere? He has a duty under the 1964 Act to intervene where the service is not being properly provided. I understand that he has partly exercised that duty by writing to the library authorities, and I thank him for doing so. I hope that his letter made it clear that he is ready to exercise his power to intervene under the 1964 Act, if a programme of wholesale closures is introduced in the next few months.
	Secondly, I hope that he will do more to protect book spending and reverse the decline in spending on books. If the Minister can find the money to provide new technologies such as the internet and support services that allow families to access libraries, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to do more to protect the core spend on books.

Michael Fallon: I certainly endorse that. There is a temptation, of course, for those who want to renew their library services to add additional facilities. The new technologies are important. Other information services linking up with Government information streams can successfully be provided in libraries. Nevertheless, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that my hon. Friend articulated so well—that books must be at the core of the library service. New technologies come and go—that is why they are new—but in the end books and access to books must lie at the heart of the service.
	I have given the Minister four or five things that I would like him to consider and act upon. I hope that he will now apply Government more actively to what can be done to improve the service. If we let local libraries continue to decline, we will be failing not only those of us in this House who love libraries, and people who choose to borrow from libraries all their lives, but people who need libraries: those who do not have the luxury of books at home, or quiet places to study them; those who need access to books after school or during the school holidays; those who are studying after work towards better qualifications; and those who are driven to explore the world of information and reference that is available to them. If libraries are service stations of the mind, it should not be left to council bureaucrats to restrict access to them.
	Libraries are as much part of our education system and common culture as they are cherished parts of our local community. If they wither away, we lose part of our cultural capital and the local points of reference between the knowledge and literature of the past and our present generation, whom those stocks should enrich. Public libraries are not the council's to cut nor the Government's to neglect. They belong to us all.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

CORRECTION

Official Report, 8 February 2006: in column 972, Division No. 156 after "Cunningham, Mr. Jim" insert "Cunningham Tony".